Regina v George KATZ - [2005] NSWCCA 128

CITATION:
Regina v George KATZ [2005] NSWCCA 128

HEARING DATE(S): 29 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

29 March 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Giles JA at 1; Hoeben J at 30; Johnson J at 31

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
Sentencing - whether inadequate reduction for pleas of guilty because mental illness impeded earlier pleas - not shown mental illness did so - whether inadequate variation in statutory ratio following finding special circumstances - no necessary extent of variation - variation open to the judge - whether error in partial accumulation of sentences - no error shown. ND

CASES CITED:
R v Carter [2001] NSWCCA 245
R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117;
R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225;
R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383.

PARTIES:
Regina v George KATZ (aka Katsaitis)

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/3318

COUNSEL:
G Rowling - Crown
J Manuell & E Ozen -Applicant

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
S E O'Connor - Applicant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
DC 03/21/0386. DC 03/21/0387

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Delaney DCJ

CCA 2004/3318
DC 03/21/0386
DC 03/21/0387

GILES JA
HOEBEN J
JOHNSON J
Tuesday 29 March 2005

REGINA v George KATZ

Judgment

1 GILES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to four offences committed in August 1999, and was sentenced to an effective total term of imprisonment of five years with a non-parole period of two years nine months. He applied for leave to appeal on grounds which were refined in the submissions of his counsel to the three grounds:

2 As will be seen, there was a degree of relationship between all three of these grounds.

3 The applicant's offences were described in detail in the judge's remarks on sentence, and for present purposes a summary is sufficient.

4 In June 1999 some blank cheques were stolen. Their serial numbers were known.

5 On 9 August 1999 the applicant booked into a room in some residential apartments under a false name.

6 On 12 August 1999 the applicant went to a clothing supplier and, using the false name, ordered a large quantity of clothing. He paid with one of the stolen bank cheques made out for $37,500. The applicant used his computer skills to complete the cheque in that manner. Most of the clothing was loaded and taken away.

7 The next day the applicant altered the order resulting in some more money being payable, but when the cheque was banked on 13 August 1999 it was recognised as one of the stolen cheques and was not met. Before the rest of the clothing was delivered the applicant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Regina v George KATZ

Details

AGLC: Regina v George Katz [2005] NSWCCA 128
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 128
Decision Date: 29 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v George KATZ involved the defendant being sentenced following a plea of guilty to various charges, including serious drug trafficking offences. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary dispute centred on whether the sentence imposed was inadequate, particularly in light of the defendant's mental illness, which allegedly impeded his earlier pleas of guilty. The defendant argued that his mental health condition warranted a more substantial reduction in sentence. The court also had to determine whether there was an error in the partial accumulation of the sentences imposed and if the variation in statutory ratio following the finding of special circumstances was appropriate.

The court examined the extent to which the defendant's mental illness influenced his capacity to enter pleas of guilty and whether this warranted a more substantial sentence reduction. The court held that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant's mental illness impeded his earlier pleas of guilty to the extent required for a significant sentence reduction. Regarding the statutory ratio, the court found that the variation open to the judge was not strictly defined and that the defendant had not shown that the extent of variation was inadequate. Furthermore, the court determined that there was no error in the partial accumulation of the sentences imposed, as the judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not inadequate, as the defendant had not demonstrated that his mental illness impeded his earlier pleas to the required extent. The variation in statutory ratio was within the permissible bounds, and there was no error in the partial accumulation of sentences. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The final orders confirmed the sentences imposed by the trial judge, with no alterations or reductions made based on the arguments presented.

Orders